Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging(news.cuanschutz.edu)
news.cuanschutz.edu
Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/scientists-may-have-found-mechanism-behind-cognitive-decline-in-aging
313 comments
Realistically, with the title you suggest nobody would have read the post.
A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment on how the title is wrong..
A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment on how the title is wrong..
>A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.
It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.
It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.
Ehh. We’ve been here long enough to both know that there’s a balance. $10 says the mods won’t change the title to the suggested one, precisely because of this balance.
It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
>It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.
Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.
Grants are ALWAYS tiered based on biased political factors. That's why they are "grants". Someone heavily invested in finding answers is willing to give money away to achieve that end. In this case, the government is heavily invested on ideas that can stimulate their economy.
I don't even know what can be done here. Take money out of acedemia? Maybe in a post scarcity world.
I don't even know what can be done here. Take money out of acedemia? Maybe in a post scarcity world.
We really need "saved you a click" version of hacker news. Same UI just title recommended by users
The Artifact news reader app on iOS uses this premise to provide one of the truly useful implementations of LLMs I've seen in the wild so far. You can mark a title as clickbait, and the app will use AI to generate a new title, usually one that is more usefully descriptive.
It's not perfect, sometimes the generated title is still totally clickbait and I've seen a couple instances of it being completely wrong or hallucinating a detail. But generally it's pretty neat.
The app also uses the same tech to summarize articles into a few bullets which I don't use as often but is also neat.
It's not perfect, sometimes the generated title is still totally clickbait and I've seen a couple instances of it being completely wrong or hallucinating a detail. But generally it's pretty neat.
The app also uses the same tech to summarize articles into a few bullets which I don't use as often but is also neat.
>It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait.
clickbait generally has an implication of incorrectly representing the content. romanticized titles aren't always clickbait, and I wouldn't say this is exactly a sensationalist tite like how others may say "We're on the first road to curing Alzheimer's disease".
>People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not.
it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's not necessarily zero sum, but attention is somewhat finite. And for some sites, the result isn't a more comfy high quality community. It just dies out, and that benefits no one.
clickbait generally has an implication of incorrectly representing the content. romanticized titles aren't always clickbait, and I wouldn't say this is exactly a sensationalist tite like how others may say "We're on the first road to curing Alzheimer's disease".
>People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not.
it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's not necessarily zero sum, but attention is somewhat finite. And for some sites, the result isn't a more comfy high quality community. It just dies out, and that benefits no one.
> A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.
Are you advocating clickbait?
Are you advocating clickbait?
Why did you italicize a word? Why speak with any emotion ever? Why not focus exclusively on the optimal method of transferring information from one being to another?
In this case, I believe that using italics to convey emphasis and a bit of emotion is the optimal method of transferring information (here, expressing surprise and questioning someone apparently favoring a practice that is generally correctly viewed as a pure negative).
I disagree, he could have made his point more efficiently, therefore undercutting his complaint.
Why say lot word when few do trick?
How about
> Researchers found aging-like cognitive effects in mice by altering the CaMKII brain protein
Only 3 more words than the original, but contains quite a bit more information about what exactly the claim is while still having a strong "hook".
> Researchers found aging-like cognitive effects in mice by altering the CaMKII brain protein
Only 3 more words than the original, but contains quite a bit more information about what exactly the claim is while still having a strong "hook".
It could be slightly dumbed down for non-bio people such as myself but kept the "flavor" of the article title
The title of the study is "Decreased nitrosylation of CaMKII causes aging-associated impairments in memory and synaptic plasticity in mice" - that would have been the base of the shortened title, if the study had been submitted.
The dissemination article was chosen for submission because it was the one from the source University. (There are more around.)
Further from using clear, synthetic expressions, it contains more information than just the (available abstract of the) research article - it is where an author of the latter states that next steps are pharmacological and involving humans.
The dissemination article was chosen for submission because it was the one from the source University. (There are more around.)
Further from using clear, synthetic expressions, it contains more information than just the (available abstract of the) research article - it is where an author of the latter states that next steps are pharmacological and involving humans.
From the HN commenting guidelines:
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
You're complaining that the title of TFA is not what you expect. This is certainly a tangential annoyance, and certainly not an interesting comment on the article. If you don't like the submission just flag it and move on. Do better.
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
You're complaining that the title of TFA is not what you expect. This is certainly a tangential annoyance, and certainly not an interesting comment on the article. If you don't like the submission just flag it and move on. Do better.
Agreed. This press release is over-the-top and implies that THE one major cause for neurocognitive decline with aging has just been discovered. I doubt the article is quite so hyperbolic. The temperature of press releases for research papers in aging and dementia research needs to be cooler.
doesn’t quite fit in HN’s 80 character limit though
Because the authors only read the abstracts.
I've noticed a cognitive decline in myself the past couple years. I'm in my mid 30's though so I assume it's more related to long covid. One of the biggest side effects of long covid for me was horrible insomnia, which was killer. The insomnia is mostly gone, but I'm still not my previous cognitive self. It's terrifying to be honest.
I had the same after COVID. Took me many months to start feeling functional again. Any time I tried to think about something, it'd just... noise out? First 2-3 months were just awful
I went to a neurologist who said there's tons of people coming in with the same complaint after COVID, and since there's no literature on that yet, he couldn't really do anything.
It gets better.
I went to a neurologist who said there's tons of people coming in with the same complaint after COVID, and since there's no literature on that yet, he couldn't really do anything.
It gets better.
I assure you that there is literature on it. Here’s an almost random sample of papers.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10238-022-00871-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nerep.2022.100154
https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20220016
I would like to point to this kind of statement that doctors often make, that there is “no literature” or that “nothing is known”. This is very often flat out wrong. Consider the size of the statement: Nothing is known and there exists no literature. The domain of knowledge required for the statement is omniscience. Having read all papers. It’s not an acceptable statement for anyone to make.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10238-022-00871-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nerep.2022.100154
https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20220016
I would like to point to this kind of statement that doctors often make, that there is “no literature” or that “nothing is known”. This is very often flat out wrong. Consider the size of the statement: Nothing is known and there exists no literature. The domain of knowledge required for the statement is omniscience. Having read all papers. It’s not an acceptable statement for anyone to make.
your earliest link here was August of last year. I have heard people taking about long COVID as early as early 2021. Properly researched literature takes time to be written and much longer to be peer reviewed and disseminated into the circle of the academic conscious.
I don't think there's much value taking the word that literally. I simply assume the acedemic conscious when I hear "there is no literature on X". I certainly wouldn't want a neurologist to tell me "oh yea I read some news on this last week and X" and treat that as gospel for an ongoing issue.
I don't think there's much value taking the word that literally. I simply assume the acedemic conscious when I hear "there is no literature on X". I certainly wouldn't want a neurologist to tell me "oh yea I read some news on this last week and X" and treat that as gospel for an ongoing issue.
Yes, the earliest publication of those three is from almost a year ago. Random sample of papers. There exist studies / results / observations with actionable information older than that. (There’s probably something in the references sections of those papers, for instance.)
I of course accept the fact that information takes time to propagate, but the fact remains that I have been to specialist doctors for serious issues which have stated flat out that “nothing is known” – where they literally meant ”nothing is known”, which was completely contradicted by papers. Ten year old papers. Twenty year old papers. Fifty year old papers.
Again and again.
Certainly not all doctors are part of this culture. More than one time I have been present when a doctor who reads academic papers makes a decision based on that information which effectively saved a life.
Nonetheless, this hazard is a very real part of medical practicioner culture.
I certainly wouldn’t want a neurologist to treat last week’s news as gospel either. Absolutely not.
I just don’t know yet how to tell people how big this gulf can be between existing knowledge – established, proven, actionable knowledge – and what a given doctor acknowledges and/or doesn’t flat out deny the existence of.
Maybe this:
Anyone can read academic papers. In biology and medicine. Anyone. Really. And it is the minority of doctors who actually do so. I suggest that people verify doctors’ statements about the complete non-existence of knowledge about any given thing, should they make such statements. Read. Read as if lives were at stake.
—
Part of the reason doctors don’t read is that they are often overworked. They really, really are. (It’s not the only reason though.)
And: Of course!, reading science papers online IS NOT a substitute for medical training.
What I suggest people do is this: Help your doctors to help you.
With the utmost humility. As if lives were at stake.
I of course accept the fact that information takes time to propagate, but the fact remains that I have been to specialist doctors for serious issues which have stated flat out that “nothing is known” – where they literally meant ”nothing is known”, which was completely contradicted by papers. Ten year old papers. Twenty year old papers. Fifty year old papers.
Again and again.
Certainly not all doctors are part of this culture. More than one time I have been present when a doctor who reads academic papers makes a decision based on that information which effectively saved a life.
Nonetheless, this hazard is a very real part of medical practicioner culture.
I certainly wouldn’t want a neurologist to treat last week’s news as gospel either. Absolutely not.
I just don’t know yet how to tell people how big this gulf can be between existing knowledge – established, proven, actionable knowledge – and what a given doctor acknowledges and/or doesn’t flat out deny the existence of.
Maybe this:
Anyone can read academic papers. In biology and medicine. Anyone. Really. And it is the minority of doctors who actually do so. I suggest that people verify doctors’ statements about the complete non-existence of knowledge about any given thing, should they make such statements. Read. Read as if lives were at stake.
—
Part of the reason doctors don’t read is that they are often overworked. They really, really are. (It’s not the only reason though.)
And: Of course!, reading science papers online IS NOT a substitute for medical training.
What I suggest people do is this: Help your doctors to help you.
With the utmost humility. As if lives were at stake.
I remember sitting trying to solve a problem to do with parent/child codes and modifiers, and I'd never had nothing come out, that was absolutely scary. 8 months later and I looked at it again and solved it so easily.
The big problem was that I'd always been able to hide my adhd symptoms, or at least 'clever' my way around them, and long covid / covid brain just laid them all bare.
Over 3 years after my first covid infection - still can't really taste or smell - I'm medicated for adhd, and I feel almost like how I was in March 2020.
The big problem was that I'd always been able to hide my adhd symptoms, or at least 'clever' my way around them, and long covid / covid brain just laid them all bare.
Over 3 years after my first covid infection - still can't really taste or smell - I'm medicated for adhd, and I feel almost like how I was in March 2020.
I wonder how many people just fell into alcohol, isolation induced depression, sedentary lifestyle, weight gain, etc... and that their health decline had nothing to do with COVID.
That's the issue with these anecdotes
That's the issue with these anecdotes
When the pandemic hit I went the opposite. Focused on a healthy mind and body, was able to study a bunch and finally broken through a few mental plateaus.
But then I _got_ COVID and I can tell you COVID brain is real. Even after I had recovered physically there were a few weeks of obvious cognitive degradation. One of my first days testing negative I was trying to implement some pretty basic pagination logic but when it came time to writing the algos for it, it was like my body flipped a switch and I would get impossibly drowsy and have to go lie down.
I've had covid twice since then without the same problem but it is very real and wild.
But then I _got_ COVID and I can tell you COVID brain is real. Even after I had recovered physically there were a few weeks of obvious cognitive degradation. One of my first days testing negative I was trying to implement some pretty basic pagination logic but when it came time to writing the algos for it, it was like my body flipped a switch and I would get impossibly drowsy and have to go lie down.
I've had covid twice since then without the same problem but it is very real and wild.
exactly! The slighted mental effort made me want to go to sleep too :(
Please forgive me for turning your words back on you: The issue with these statements such as yours is that they assume the non-existence of evidence that confirms that people’s experience is real.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006
SARS-CoV-2 is known to cause brain damage, endocrine problems, and circulatory issues which impede oxygenation. Of the brain.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006
SARS-CoV-2 is known to cause brain damage, endocrine problems, and circulatory issues which impede oxygenation. Of the brain.
OP did not claim their comment wasn’t an anecdote…
Long COVID is real.
For me personally, I've been working from home for years. While the world around me changed, my life stayed the same.
there wasn't really much of a lockdown where I live, so I sincerely doubt that. Also I got COVID after the entire lockdown was over everywhere (2021), sooo no
After my startup failed and I broke up with my girlfriend, my cognition massively changed: I was less creative, less quick, and I could see it reduce my ability to code. Otherwise, I lost libido, had paranoia in social interaction, and alcohol or marijuana would cause me paranoia. When I would ride my motorcycle on curvy roads, or when I would play a racing game or read a book, I couldn't get into a flow anymore. Thinking about activities would stress me to the point that I would avoid doing anything.
After a number of years I feel normal, and I think it was due primarily to finding and sticking to a routine. The routine involves little things like watering plants and making coffee, and I just do them every day without thinking. Otherwise it includes exercise, sleep, chores, work, and procrastination.
After a number of years I feel normal, and I think it was due primarily to finding and sticking to a routine. The routine involves little things like watering plants and making coffee, and I just do them every day without thinking. Otherwise it includes exercise, sleep, chores, work, and procrastination.
I had to finish up my PhD while already working at a FAANG. My professor would keep stacking more stuff that he wanted to have in my thesis. It was a horrible time and I think I was very close to a burnout.
One thing that I later noticed was that I e.g. couldn't enjoy any music anymore. I always used to be able to be absolutely amazed by some tracks and dance to it at home - but during that time there was just nothing.
One thing that I later noticed was that I e.g. couldn't enjoy any music anymore. I always used to be able to be absolutely amazed by some tracks and dance to it at home - but during that time there was just nothing.
I recently quit my dev job because it was too stressful and I was burning out. I seemed to almost instantly get better at thrashing my motorbike in the twisties... I'm not sure why exactly but it feels like a weight was lifted and it just allowed me to focus and enjoy being in the moment a bit more.
That sounds like textbook depression (although you didn’t mention feeling down explicitly).
During that time, is there any chance you weren’t eating enough? Did you lose weight?
During that time, is there any chance you weren’t eating enough? Did you lose weight?
Yeah, I found too I wasn't eating enough. I estimates I was eating around 1500-2000 calories regularly and I never really felt hungry. Once I started forcing myself to eat larger meals I felt a lot better and started feeling hunger again.
fyi, this can happen in a successful startup/business also. this happened to me when i was stressed out of my mind and stuck doing work i hate for customers i didn't want after 10 years of running a biz.
it took a breakup, a sale of the business, and nearly 2 years of doing nothing until i recovered.
fwiw, the biggest takeaways the whole thing taught me are 1. be careful of what you wish for and 2. both attractive women and customers want outcomes, they don't give a shit about your problems and 3. never forego vacations/holidays for work.
as for me, well - you know how the saying goes - it's always darkest before the dawn, and life is good now. for the time being. but i know that if i wake up one day and i'm feeling like a fucking pack mule for people who don't appreciate me, it's time for a massive rapid change, without the period of suffering this time.
it took a breakup, a sale of the business, and nearly 2 years of doing nothing until i recovered.
fwiw, the biggest takeaways the whole thing taught me are 1. be careful of what you wish for and 2. both attractive women and customers want outcomes, they don't give a shit about your problems and 3. never forego vacations/holidays for work.
as for me, well - you know how the saying goes - it's always darkest before the dawn, and life is good now. for the time being. but i know that if i wake up one day and i'm feeling like a fucking pack mule for people who don't appreciate me, it's time for a massive rapid change, without the period of suffering this time.
> it's time for a massive rapid change, without the period of suffering this time
I massively agree, though I will make the mistake of staying for money again. Whenever I see I can work 3 years at A for every 1 year at B, I can't stomach the loss.
I massively agree, though I will make the mistake of staying for money again. Whenever I see I can work 3 years at A for every 1 year at B, I can't stomach the loss.
This is a refreshing comment to see here. Thank you.
Quality of sleep makes a huge difference to your mental faculties. If you could bottle it, the effect would be a multi, multi $billion drug.
I’m prescribed trazadone for insomnia, and it’s magnificent. Virtually zero grogginess the next morning like I’d get from an anti-histamine, no compromise on sleep quality as the drug actually improves length and quality of REM sleep rather than negatively impacting it as many other sleep-aids do.
Exercise tends to help.
My kids have started taking swim lessons at the Y, so i've been sneaking up stairs to run a mile during their lesson. I've thought about strength training etc, but I have no idea what i'm doing on those machines.
Can't say I feel any different, but it is enjoyable.
Can't say I feel any different, but it is enjoyable.
Pretty much anything that makes your muscles feel sore and doesn't cause injury is worth doing.
IMO: most of what makes fit people fit is becoming aware of their body in detail: how to use muscles, how they work, what they feel like, what they should feel like when they're working together -- all of this builds a foundation where, if they lost their fitness, they would just get it back again.
So if you don't know what you're doing: just learn by doing. Pick something that it seems like your body should be able to do easily, but can't, and fix it. Repeat x100 and you'll be fit as hell.
IMO: most of what makes fit people fit is becoming aware of their body in detail: how to use muscles, how they work, what they feel like, what they should feel like when they're working together -- all of this builds a foundation where, if they lost their fitness, they would just get it back again.
So if you don't know what you're doing: just learn by doing. Pick something that it seems like your body should be able to do easily, but can't, and fix it. Repeat x100 and you'll be fit as hell.
> doesn't cause injury is worth doing.
Not causing injuries is the hardest part.
You can start with bodyweight though. Pushups, pull-ups, etc. I recommend the YouTube channel FitnessFAQs or Calisthenicmovement for a good start there. No nonsense, direct guides with discussion of technique and injury avoidance.
Not causing injuries is the hardest part.
You can start with bodyweight though. Pushups, pull-ups, etc. I recommend the YouTube channel FitnessFAQs or Calisthenicmovement for a good start there. No nonsense, direct guides with discussion of technique and injury avoidance.
Running is a good start. Keep the distance increases reasonable to avoid injury. Enjoying it is important - no need to add anything else until/unless the running gets boring. (Yeah, weights can help, but like you said, can be overwhelming for somebody new to fitness)
For me, I started with a very simple routine with dumbbells:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230609011808/https://old.reddi...
It's not perfect, but it was great for getting into the habit 3 times a week. Now I often make up my own sets as I go, taking note of what's sore on me and what I feel could use some work. Doing that gave me the time to do research and get a bit more familiar with how to engage certain muscles, and what machines will do what for me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230609011808/https://old.reddi...
It's not perfect, but it was great for getting into the habit 3 times a week. Now I often make up my own sets as I go, taking note of what's sore on me and what I feel could use some work. Doing that gave me the time to do research and get a bit more familiar with how to engage certain muscles, and what machines will do what for me.
> I have no idea what i'm doing on those machines.
Book some regular sessions with a personal trainer. He/she will give you a balanced basic routine and teach you good form.
I was fortunate to have an excellent PT when I first ventured into the gym age 19, a skinny, awkward, scared teenager. The structure of that gym program is still the basis of what I do 30 years later. Different exercises get incorporated, depending on my goals at the time, and variations in # of reps and sets. But still the same general approach.
Book some regular sessions with a personal trainer. He/she will give you a balanced basic routine and teach you good form.
I was fortunate to have an excellent PT when I first ventured into the gym age 19, a skinny, awkward, scared teenager. The structure of that gym program is still the basis of what I do 30 years later. Different exercises get incorporated, depending on my goals at the time, and variations in # of reps and sets. But still the same general approach.
Strength training is so good for desk jobbers! I recommend joining some small group circuit training or CrossFit groups, where the trainers will show you how to lift correctly and safely.
Just try some pushups, dips, pull ups, and sit ups. Just do a set of a few types each day until your strength is depleted and you will see strength gains.
Unless you also got PEM with your long COVID, then exercise makes it a lot worse. Bro science is dangerous.
Don't think the sleep quality pill comment was aimed at long covid specifically.
Just because some people have conditions that prevent them from exercising it doesn't mean it isn't the healthy choice overall.
Just because some people have conditions that prevent them from exercising it doesn't mean it isn't the healthy choice overall.
“Exercise is healthy” is very, very far from “Bro science”.
[deleted]
"Exercise helps post-COVID cognitive decline and insomnia" is absolutely bro science, and especially since it can make the whole situation much, much worse.
That was never the claim. The claim was that it helps with brain fog and mental clarity in general, not specifically that caused by long-COVID, which had been proven to be true.
And a cursory look at the literature for PEM[1] will show you that the recommended path to recovery isn’t “avoid physical exertion at all costs”, but to do what you’re capable of and slowly ramp up the intensity, in which case small amounts of exercise could play a vital role.
[1] http://www.phsa.ca/health-info-site/Documents/post_covid-19_...
And a cursory look at the literature for PEM[1] will show you that the recommended path to recovery isn’t “avoid physical exertion at all costs”, but to do what you’re capable of and slowly ramp up the intensity, in which case small amounts of exercise could play a vital role.
[1] http://www.phsa.ca/health-info-site/Documents/post_covid-19_...
Actually I was answering to the person demanding pills for sleep quality...
Have a blood work checkup. Ensure you'll check vitamin and mineral levels, perhaps most notably vit D and iron. Also check ferritin and transferrin saturation (aids in pinpointing hemochromatosis ie iron overload, which for many leads to brain fog and fatigue and often shows up your age). Exercise regularly.
Also, get checked up for Sleep Apnea. It is a truly life-ruining condition whose primary side effect is lost memory and cognitive function.
Holy shit this. I went years undiagnosed. Saw a dozen doctors. Couldn’t get an clear explanation for why I was always tired, brain fog, vision problems, joint pain, memory issues. The list goes on.
Then my _dentist_ of all people ordered a Watch-PAT take-home sleep test (took a lab sleep test, but it was useless) which finally revealed I was having more than 10 events per hour. The dentist made me a Herbst appliance to hold my airways open during sleep. My life is 100x better now.
Then my _dentist_ of all people ordered a Watch-PAT take-home sleep test (took a lab sleep test, but it was useless) which finally revealed I was having more than 10 events per hour. The dentist made me a Herbst appliance to hold my airways open during sleep. My life is 100x better now.
This is one of the most frustrating things about the US. This shit is expensive. Sure, for a lot of us making bank in the software field we tend to lose sight of that. I got laid off (yay hyper-capitalist bonus chasing management). I'm reading this thread and seeing plenty of things that would be great from a health perspective but let's be real. They're all out of reach for me. Fortunately, that's temporary for myself. I'm sure I'll be back to making bank within a year or two. Most folks however? This advice will permanently be out of reach.
> I've noticed a cognitive decline in myself the past couple years.
How have you measured? I know people do decline cognitively in old age, but 30s is still young. I wonder if people only think they were sharper when younger. I knew much less in my 20s and made tons of mistakes. The mind has a peculiar way of highlighting good memories and downplaying the bad. The person I was in my 20s would not be able to do my current job.
How have you measured? I know people do decline cognitively in old age, but 30s is still young. I wonder if people only think they were sharper when younger. I knew much less in my 20s and made tons of mistakes. The mind has a peculiar way of highlighting good memories and downplaying the bad. The person I was in my 20s would not be able to do my current job.
My 30s self also runs circles around my 20s self when it comes to work (writing code), but I’m confident that’s thanks to the knowledge, experience, and wisdom that’s accumulated in that time.
If it were somehow possible to grant my 20s self these advantages, he’d run circles around me. Not just because he’s cognitively faster, but because he’s able to work for longer periods without feeling fatigued and can focus more deeply thanks to having fewer mental background tasks constantly running and not yet feeling the various time-related pressures that come with age.
Giving my teenage self current knowledge would also be interesting. Even though people aren’t cognitively complete yet at that point, at that age I had the ability to get lost in a project on a dime which was was amazing.
If it were somehow possible to grant my 20s self these advantages, he’d run circles around me. Not just because he’s cognitively faster, but because he’s able to work for longer periods without feeling fatigued and can focus more deeply thanks to having fewer mental background tasks constantly running and not yet feeling the various time-related pressures that come with age.
Giving my teenage self current knowledge would also be interesting. Even though people aren’t cognitively complete yet at that point, at that age I had the ability to get lost in a project on a dime which was was amazing.
It is an extraordinary claim to say that people think as fast in their 30s as 30s. Billions of people have direct experience over thousands of years.
Yes, accumulated knowledge and wisdom can make you more successful with age. It doesn't mean your fluid intelligence and ability to learn new things is keeping up.
Yes, accumulated knowledge and wisdom can make you more successful with age. It doesn't mean your fluid intelligence and ability to learn new things is keeping up.
How do you measure?
Poor sleep causes significant cognitive impairments in memory, processing speed, etc. Restoring good sleep usually restores most cognitive function, depending on the extent of the sleep deficit. Get a sleep watch or device to track both duration and depth of sleep.
You might want to research Nicotinamide Riboside. I started taking it to see if it would help with painful inflammation in my hands, wrists, and knees and noticed that when I take it, not only is inflammation improved, but my sleep improved (I track with an Oura ring) and I can concentrate for longer periods of time.
Might all be placebo effect, but I’m okay with that. My doctor seems to think that’s probably the case.
FWIW, I’m 20 years older than you.
Might all be placebo effect, but I’m okay with that. My doctor seems to think that’s probably the case.
FWIW, I’m 20 years older than you.
It is a shame that NR is quite an expensive placebo, though. I've found similar results, but I have zero faith in it being some sort of anti aging agent in humans.
How did this go to the top vote?
Brings nothing about the article just dubious personal long covid claims.
HN please stop upvoting this nonsense. Already the second and third answers are HN quality.
This is r/covid commentary. Does not belong here.
HN please stop upvoting this nonsense. Already the second and third answers are HN quality.
This is r/covid commentary. Does not belong here.
What makes you the arbiter of discussion? The article is about cognitive decline, this is an anecdote about personal cognitive decline that they believe happened to be caused by covid.
If you think every comment with a personal anecdote tangentially related to the article is “nonsense” and “r/x” material then you must be constantly frustrated by nearly every HN comments section of sufficient length.
If you think every comment with a personal anecdote tangentially related to the article is “nonsense” and “r/x” material then you must be constantly frustrated by nearly every HN comments section of sufficient length.
And yet the volume of replies, advice, and questions, against this suggests it's brought enjoyable conversation. On-topic is shades of grey.
Popularity is not a proxy for quality.
...and just like Reddit, chasing popular posts and comments is a race to the bottom as it attracts an ever-more juvenile crowd of participants.
Nuanced opinions and expert commentary are more boring but attract a more intellectually curious crowd - and that is what sets HN apart from reddit.
...and just like Reddit, chasing popular posts and comments is a race to the bottom as it attracts an ever-more juvenile crowd of participants.
Nuanced opinions and expert commentary are more boring but attract a more intellectually curious crowd - and that is what sets HN apart from reddit.
It isn't, but at the same time pop culture isn't automatically low quality either. I think blind call to actions based on gut feelings without understand WHY those gut feelings exist are exactly the kinds of things we should discourage here.
I use the collorary for evaluating stuff like this. I care less about a high polished acedemic answer than I do about the resulting discussion not diving into a dumpster afterwrds. For here, I don't see a de-evolution into COVID denailism and anti-vaxxers or even random anecdotes of an off the hinge relative who died and the OP has to be like "I told him but he wouldn't listen", like I would on reddit. I see interesting discussion on a topic that is still a very hotly researched topic even in academia. Ways to potentially get checked or self help to mitigate effects.
No one is an expert on "long COVID" yet, so it's interesting to see experiences (and IMO, see how they age as we learn more about such phenomenon).
I use the collorary for evaluating stuff like this. I care less about a high polished acedemic answer than I do about the resulting discussion not diving into a dumpster afterwrds. For here, I don't see a de-evolution into COVID denailism and anti-vaxxers or even random anecdotes of an off the hinge relative who died and the OP has to be like "I told him but he wouldn't listen", like I would on reddit. I see interesting discussion on a topic that is still a very hotly researched topic even in academia. Ways to potentially get checked or self help to mitigate effects.
No one is an expert on "long COVID" yet, so it's interesting to see experiences (and IMO, see how they age as we learn more about such phenomenon).
True in the limit yet democracy and free markets both imply popularity has something to it.
I've found that going to the gym and lifting weights will clear my head. That wasn't necessary pre-covid though.
Agreed! Similarly, ice baths/cold plunges are a great way for me to mentally “reset” and clear up a little brain fog. Minimizing carbs has, for me, also helped. Not eliminating them mind you, but reeling my consumption of them in to a healthy level and focusing on proteins, fruits, veggies, etc for most of my caloric intake.
Are you taking vitamin d? If not you absolutely should. Magnesium at the same time as D3 and then glycine and another dose of magnesium before bed. This is the magic formula for me.
If you take a lot of vitamin d, make sure you also take vitamin k.
Just a random source here because I'm too lazy:
https://www.balancedwellbeinghealthcare.com/are-you-taking-v...
> Because vitamin D is so good at improving calcium levels, by taking it alone you could be working to increase the calcification of your arteries instead of strengthening your bones so make sure to include K2 in your vitamin D supplement regimen!
Just a random source here because I'm too lazy:
https://www.balancedwellbeinghealthcare.com/are-you-taking-v...
> Because vitamin D is so good at improving calcium levels, by taking it alone you could be working to increase the calcification of your arteries instead of strengthening your bones so make sure to include K2 in your vitamin D supplement regimen!
Make sure it's vitamin K2 and not K1.
Vitamin K2 is what essentially takes calcium out of your blood and puts it in your bones (and teeth). It's something that's rather lacking in western diets and could be a big reason why people in western countries suffer so many bones injuries in old age (and why our teeth suck).
Vitamin K2 is what essentially takes calcium out of your blood and puts it in your bones (and teeth). It's something that's rather lacking in western diets and could be a big reason why people in western countries suffer so many bones injuries in old age (and why our teeth suck).
Do you have any recommendations for K2? A generic brand would be okay? Thanks
I just get D3 and K2 together and seems to work pretty well
https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Research-Plant-Based-Verified-...
https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Research-Plant-Based-Verified-...
Please note that overtaking vitamin D is unhealthy as well. It’s a hormone and I believe taking too much is damaging to the liver. But supplemental and when having a lack of Sun is probably a good balance.
But if you can be in the sun your skin can make vitamin D.
But if you can be in the sun your skin can make vitamin D.
Note that windows typically block the majority of the radiation that allows you to make vitamin D, so even if the sun hits you every day through your window, it's still not a good substitute for a sunny walk every once in a while. My doctor told me to go out at noon every day, but anything is better than nothing.
Walking doesn't help me for 8 months of the year: There simply isn't strong enough sun to help. December days are only 4-5 hours long anyway. So, I was told to take a supplement from September to May.
My doctor told me to get 15 minutes a day from May through the end of August - and these should be walks with at least the arms exposed (Am in Norway, so this isn't always possible for me, the immigrant). Walking alone isn't always enough.
My doctor told me to get 15 minutes a day from May through the end of August - and these should be walks with at least the arms exposed (Am in Norway, so this isn't always possible for me, the immigrant). Walking alone isn't always enough.
I bought a load of UV-B flo tubes with a desert profile and rigged them up over my bed which would go upto the ceiling and then they would come down in order to bask under for hours. I could control how far away from me the lights were so I could move have them closer to me for a quick 30mins or have them further away for spending 2-3hrs underneath them.
I'd go to sleep under them, just dont have them too close to you though otherwise you will burn but never tan.
https://www.reptilecentre.com/collections/t5-uvb-fluorescent...
I'd also read this website entirely, its got loads of useful info. http://www.uvguide.co.uk/lightingsurveyintro.htm
I'd go to sleep under them, just dont have them too close to you though otherwise you will burn but never tan.
https://www.reptilecentre.com/collections/t5-uvb-fluorescent...
I'd also read this website entirely, its got loads of useful info. http://www.uvguide.co.uk/lightingsurveyintro.htm
Nearly all Glass and Plastics block UV-B which is needed to make Vit D. UV-A found in tanning salons oxidises the melanin pigment aka the sun tan and melanin converts 99.9% of UV radiation and converts it into heat, so the suntan regulates how much pre-vitD can be made by the skin.
There is a corrugated plastic sheet (2mx1m) which allows UV-B through, but it needs replacing every few years as it breaks down and its expensive!
There is a corrugated plastic sheet (2mx1m) which allows UV-B through, but it needs replacing every few years as it breaks down and its expensive!
Yes, walking is super healthy, my lunch breaks are always a walk outside.
You have to go really overboard with vitamin D3 to take too much of it. The daily recommendations so far are underestimating it. 4000 IU should be fine for adults. There are people that take 6000-10000 IU, but it's hard to say whether they might be suffering from some long term effects due to this.
You should take vitamin K2 with D3 though.
>But if you can be in the sun your skin can make vitamin D.
This is harder than people say. You need UVB light to hit your uncovered skin (glass blocks it entirely). The sun needs to be above 35-50 degrees in the sky. If it's below that (like in winter or evenings) then you won't get vitamin D from it.
You should take vitamin K2 with D3 though.
>But if you can be in the sun your skin can make vitamin D.
This is harder than people say. You need UVB light to hit your uncovered skin (glass blocks it entirely). The sun needs to be above 35-50 degrees in the sky. If it's below that (like in winter or evenings) then you won't get vitamin D from it.
Vitamin D3 also promotes osteoclastgenesis which can weaken the bones and release calcium into the blood stream.
Needs to be balanced with calcium. I wouldn't recommend supplements until you have blood work done.
Needs to be balanced with calcium. I wouldn't recommend supplements until you have blood work done.
I've tried a variety of supplements, the only thing i've tried with any noticable effect is ashwagandha.
I doubt it is much to do with COVID. Mid 30’s is about the time when you have to start paying closer attention to things like sleep and exercise or everything starts to go to shit.
I'm in my early 40s, and do nothing specifically for my physical health. I don't have cognitive decline, I don't suffer from little issues at all, (someone once said that'll happen once past 40), some days I skip sleep entirely.
I also learn new stuff and program on projects, which are cognitively demanding, almost every single day. I don't regularly watch TV shows. On occasion I binge-watch something, only to stop it again for many months. I don't drink alcohol at all, but I consume small amounts of THC.
Your "mid 30s" claim might be true for people who are doing it wrong, which probably/likely is the vast majority, but there's absolutely no fair and objective way of putting an age on the beginning of cognitive or physical decline as if it was outside of ones personality responsibility/abilities to prevent it from happening until a much, much later age.
But ... to be the exception that agrees with the rule: If I lived how most people around seem to be living, I'd likely suffer from decline as well.
I also learn new stuff and program on projects, which are cognitively demanding, almost every single day. I don't regularly watch TV shows. On occasion I binge-watch something, only to stop it again for many months. I don't drink alcohol at all, but I consume small amounts of THC.
Your "mid 30s" claim might be true for people who are doing it wrong, which probably/likely is the vast majority, but there's absolutely no fair and objective way of putting an age on the beginning of cognitive or physical decline as if it was outside of ones personality responsibility/abilities to prevent it from happening until a much, much later age.
But ... to be the exception that agrees with the rule: If I lived how most people around seem to be living, I'd likely suffer from decline as well.
Obviously it’s different for everyone. Count yourself lucky I guess!
Some supplements that seem to improve my cognition (based on my subjective experience) are vitamin B complex, lecitone jeune, omega 3 & mct oil.
[deleted]
In what ways have you noticed the cognitive decline? Just curious. Don’t feel the need to share if too personal.
I think a lot of problems are related to people thinking their sleep is good when it is not.
Have you noticed a change in your breathing due to covid?
Not OP but I had terrible covid at 38y old around march 2020. My chest xray showed one of my lungs was really bad , and during 3 months I was feeling like crap (includingthe brain fog and all the stuff people mention).
Fast forward 3 years, I go swimming thrice a week, and it sucks that STILL my breathing hasn't recovered. If I try to take a lot of air for several times, I'll start coughing. I get out of air quickly... even though I have strength to keep swimming.
Fast forward 3 years, I go swimming thrice a week, and it sucks that STILL my breathing hasn't recovered. If I try to take a lot of air for several times, I'll start coughing. I get out of air quickly... even though I have strength to keep swimming.
> I'm in my mid 30's though so I assume it's more related to long covid.
Much more likely to just be aging. You're not too old for it.
Much more likely to just be aging. You're not too old for it.
Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging, but there shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment that one may confuse with clickbait.
Literally every science headline these days.
But tbf who said science was easy? You can't force definitive results, shit's just complex.
But tbf who said science was easy? You can't force definitive results, shit's just complex.
I'm having a very hard time understanding this comment. Perhaps my cognitive decline has begun.
Update: I see I should rewatch "Life of Brian".
Update: I see I should rewatch "Life of Brian".
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before around eight o’clock.
Alternative medicine salesmen touting BS loosely based on the research: Behold the gourd!
Thanks for the TL;DR
Apparently we should add "in mice", "single study", "small study" and about 14 other disclaimers to every HN title about science.
If you care desperately about "in mice" find a less "general interest" news source.
If you care desperately about "in mice" find a less "general interest" news source.
“Room temperature superconductivity discovered in mice.” would be an interesting turn of events at least.
> Apparently we should add "in mice", "single study", "small study" and about 14 other disclaimers to every HN title about science.
That would be nice, yes. Otherwise there's an endless stream of "revolutionary" discoveries that turn out to be nothing.
That would be nice, yes. Otherwise there's an endless stream of "revolutionary" discoveries that turn out to be nothing.
And what a tragedy that would be. Positively unrecoverable, we might end up remembering we’re not experts, this is not a scientific website, and fun/excitement/entertainment is a good thing.
I don't think it has to be as binary as "nothing" or "we found the cure for cancer".
we do these experinebts on mice due to similar-ish brain chemistry. It hopefully leads to controlled human studies and then we start devloping medicine that way. It's always a process.
we do these experinebts on mice due to similar-ish brain chemistry. It hopefully leads to controlled human studies and then we start devloping medicine that way. It's always a process.
Its not about caring desperately about "in mice", it's about respecting HN as a feed of articles that represent their titles.
The underlying study that this PR hype piece is advertising does not, and correctly includes "in mice".
The underlying study that this PR hype piece is advertising does not, and correctly includes "in mice".
Fingers crossed that it can actually be replicated in future studies and research. We definitely don't want another nearly 20 years of false path ass busting research based on falsified documentation like we ended up with on Alzheimer studies.
I thought the fraud did not invalidate the results and that plaque was still considered the primary cause.
In fact, wasn't there a drug recently released that demonstrated that?
In fact, wasn't there a drug recently released that demonstrated that?
No. There was a drug released that targeted that pathway, but the approval in and of itself was a scandal - I spoke with a pharmacist last night who said people at her hospital were disgusted by the FDA’s decision. It was removed from the market two weeks later. There was basically no evidence of efficacy.
FDA approves stuff all the time that has no efficacy
Not in the face of such overwhelming evidence; it’s literally their job to make sure things are effective. It turns out medical studies are weaker evidence than anyone would like, but here there was quite compelling evidence that it was useless!
There are several controlled studies that show phenylephrine does absolutely nothing better than placebo for congestion, yet it's the #1 medication sold and available in the US for congestion.
> that plaque was still considered the primary cause.
Plaque has never been proven to be the primary cause of decline, it's just associated with it.
Plaque has never been proven to be the primary cause of decline, it's just associated with it.
Did it demonstrate plaque as cause, or effect (that gets cleaned up with meds)?
Is that actually what happened with Alzheimer research?
The article suggests that decline in nitric oxide availability as you age under pins the effect studied. Citrulline has been found to be an effective route for improving nitric oxide levels by synthesizing into arginine, which is destroyed in the gut while citrulline is not and readily converts into arginine.
https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1...
… in humans
https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1...
… in humans
[deleted]
The brain is an extremely complicated
I think they may have found one mechanism or one part behind the cognitive decline in aging.
I am certain there are several different processes that contribute to it and finding all of them and then mitigating those may have side effects in other parts of the brain.
I have an extremely speculative and not based on science that the brain simply is not meant to function forever.
We extend life in various ways, and we get better at it. Perhaps in a couple of decades people will live (be kept alive) for 100 years on average. (well those who live in a country where such medication and treatment is available and at some level affordable)
But human evolution has not caught up with the prolonged life span since living that long has been an exception for 300.000 years and looking farther back in evolution probably millions of years
I think they may have found one mechanism or one part behind the cognitive decline in aging.
I am certain there are several different processes that contribute to it and finding all of them and then mitigating those may have side effects in other parts of the brain.
I have an extremely speculative and not based on science that the brain simply is not meant to function forever.
We extend life in various ways, and we get better at it. Perhaps in a couple of decades people will live (be kept alive) for 100 years on average. (well those who live in a country where such medication and treatment is available and at some level affordable)
But human evolution has not caught up with the prolonged life span since living that long has been an exception for 300.000 years and looking farther back in evolution probably millions of years
No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1.
I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
It's possible people vote up articles like these because they want skeptical readers to analyze them.
(I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)
(I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)
Agree.
Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important.
But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.
Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important.
But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.
I'm more interested to hear what discoveries have lead to meaningful results. There are a lot of news articles on potential medical breakthroughs but I have no idea how medicine is actually advancing.
I've been reading gesture recognition papers that claim to be real time and I've yet to see one I can reproduce in real time or reproduce at all.
The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.
The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.
There is no world in which HN is not a “waste” of time.
This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.
This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.
Nah, surely we found a room temperature super conductor and solved one of the most major aspects of aging all in 1 week!
I see it as progress, not a cure. Is there anything wrong with reporting progress?
In mice! Seriously, is it so difficult to add those two words in the title?
That would change the title into your reading. The title is literal. Pharmacological treatments are proposed - for humans.
That would change the title into your reading.
What does that mean?
The title is literal.
It is literally incomplete and the missing context changes the entire meaning.
Pharmacological treatments are proposed - for humans.
This isn't what the title says or implies.
What does that mean?
The title is literal.
It is literally incomplete and the missing context changes the entire meaning.
Pharmacological treatments are proposed - for humans.
This isn't what the title says or implies.
> What does that mean?
If one added that specification, it would change the meaning that David Kelly seems to have intended. (It would change it to what the poster understood.) Kelly does not seem to restrict the matter to mice, as Uli Bayer does not seem to.
> This isn't what the title says or implies
It is what the submitted divulgational article from the University writes, and the title follows.
If one added that specification, it would change the meaning that David Kelly seems to have intended. (It would change it to what the poster understood.) Kelly does not seem to restrict the matter to mice, as Uli Bayer does not seem to.
> This isn't what the title says or implies
It is what the submitted divulgational article from the University writes, and the title follows.
Isn't the mechanism behind anything in aging "entropy"?
Honestly, this is basically it. The organisms that supposedly don't suffer from aging, are probably just better at accounting for entropy.
What does that mean?
[deleted]
Over time things break down and don’t work as well. Some organs cope with this better than others. This is how I read it.
> He pointed out that this would only work in normal age-related cognitive decline, not the decline seen in Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.
That's an important distinction. Alzheimer's disease is a specific problem, separate from long-term cognitive decline. That the mechanisms of both have been identified is real progress. One way medicine progresses is by differentiating causes of the same symptoms. Then specific treatments can be worked on.
That's an important distinction. Alzheimer's disease is a specific problem, separate from long-term cognitive decline. That the mechanisms of both have been identified is real progress. One way medicine progresses is by differentiating causes of the same symptoms. Then specific treatments can be worked on.
I've been seeing this headline for 20 years
The thing about its wording is: It was true every single time.
I'm glad they are still working on it, and have for 20+ years.
Unfortunately CaMKII also promotes cancer cell propagation. Typical evolutionary tradeoff it seems.
>Normal aging reduces the amount of nitric oxide in the body. That in turn reduces nitrosylation which decreases memory and learning ability, the study said.
Has viagra shown affects at reducing normal aging in the brain? It seems to do so in the heart.
https://news.vcu.edu/article/Nitric_Oxide_release_triggered_...
Has viagra shown affects at reducing normal aging in the brain? It seems to do so in the heart.
https://news.vcu.edu/article/Nitric_Oxide_release_triggered_...
Cialis has been linked to mitigation of cognitive decline:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6705107/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53136-y
And Viagra has been identified as a potential tool against Alzhimers:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00138-z
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-...
Ideally, we'd identify the key mechanisms at play and be able to develop lifestyle modifications that would support them, but it's pretty cool that these drugs have benefits beyond just better bedroom performance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6705107/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53136-y
And Viagra has been identified as a potential tool against Alzhimers:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00138-z
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-...
Ideally, we'd identify the key mechanisms at play and be able to develop lifestyle modifications that would support them, but it's pretty cool that these drugs have benefits beyond just better bedroom performance.
I’m not sure what the proper name is for this idea, but I consider ageing to be a trade-off between cell-regeneration, which maintains youthfulness, and mutation-limitation, which reduces the chances of cancer. That is to say, if you “aged less”, you would get cancer more/sooner. Everything else, like the balance of chemicals in the body, I assume would be downstream of that.
I don't think we can say that's true. There is some evidence that there is no association between body mass and age on cancer development in mammals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04224-5
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04224-5
I'm not a biologist, but I believe what you're talking about is telomerase?
Telomeres are just repeats at the end of chromosomes to allow for replication. They aren't directly involved in replication fidelity beyond allowing for replication to proceed. I guess protecting genes near chromosome termini but that's different than the mutations you would expect in cancer.
my understanding is cancer gets more prevalent when the telomeres get old (short?), since it leads to more mutations/botched replication?
I'm sorry for the delay, but this actually isn't quite right. Short telomere syndromes are not associated with cancer. In fact, it is long telomeres that have a strong association with cancer (largely because aberrantly activating telomerase can drive cancer development.)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22965356/ for more on short telomere syndromes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22965356/ for more on short telomere syndromes.
[deleted]
Research now more or less always proceeds bottom-up so that it's never possible to determine causality from results. Everyone looks for causality, researchers look for positive results and the wheel keeps on turning.
When top-down thinking disappears, science enters a cognitive decline of its own. This one is contagious.
> May
article like these come out dozen per year, and it's all putative unless they can make a pill out of that knowledge
article like these come out dozen per year, and it's all putative unless they can make a pill out of that knowledge
Those kind of articles (and papers) would be far more impactful if they were used only when they actually referred to some major real breakthrough.
As opposed for us to read 1000s of them in the span of 10 years, and nothing ever coming out of them - except 200 more articles like that from other teams, on other competing mechanisms.
What about a more real title: "Scientists found a potential mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging, but it's more likely that they have not, the area of study is very complex and ill-understood still, and it will take decades at best to discover and verify any definitive mechanisms. More likely this study also has methodological errors or these guys are even padding their numbers to get a paper published and secure more grants".
Yes, it's a mouthful.
How about "Researchers find a way to induce cognititive decline in lab animals. Don't hold your breath for human relevance".
As opposed for us to read 1000s of them in the span of 10 years, and nothing ever coming out of them - except 200 more articles like that from other teams, on other competing mechanisms.
What about a more real title: "Scientists found a potential mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging, but it's more likely that they have not, the area of study is very complex and ill-understood still, and it will take decades at best to discover and verify any definitive mechanisms. More likely this study also has methodological errors or these guys are even padding their numbers to get a paper published and secure more grants".
Yes, it's a mouthful.
How about "Researchers find a way to induce cognititive decline in lab animals. Don't hold your breath for human relevance".
Eventually we will reach a point where humans are immortal. They’ll still die if they’re shot or clog their arteries etc but they won’t die purely based on running down a clock.
There’s no inherent reason we have to die. It’s an evolved strategy to allow newer models to replace us. Turn that off and you’d stay around until physical damage and irreparable decay takes you out.
It will be interesting from a societal standpoint. You’ll have the real scum people wanting free immortality and people arguing they should get it even though they’re horrible. You’ll have the rich people who want to keep it to themselves because the poor don’t deserve it. Things like prison sentences and the general value of time would all be messed up.
There’s no inherent reason we have to die. It’s an evolved strategy to allow newer models to replace us. Turn that off and you’d stay around until physical damage and irreparable decay takes you out.
It will be interesting from a societal standpoint. You’ll have the real scum people wanting free immortality and people arguing they should get it even though they’re horrible. You’ll have the rich people who want to keep it to themselves because the poor don’t deserve it. Things like prison sentences and the general value of time would all be messed up.
> [death is] an evolved strategy to allow newer models to replace us
I don't think that's true and it's pretty difficult to argue that it is given how close to universal death is among living things... if it were true evolution would also have explored the adjacent possible of near immortality more often. After all living longer also means potentially producing more offspring, so it's not an impediment to natural selection. Probably more accurate to say that between the complexity required to keep repairing the accumulated damage in an individual organism over time and simply replacing the organism with a new model every so often, evolution prudently chose the later. Evolution is economical... making highly complex systems that are eternally resilient and repairable is not.
I don't doubt we'll soon be able to extend lifespan (and healthspan) by quite a bit but not indefinitely unless we can transfer the mind to a new body. And frankly I doubt that makes a lot of sense because I don't think 200-year-old me will feel much identity with 20-year-old me anyway. The Buddhists probably have it right that the sense of a continuous self is largely an illusion.
I don't think that's true and it's pretty difficult to argue that it is given how close to universal death is among living things... if it were true evolution would also have explored the adjacent possible of near immortality more often. After all living longer also means potentially producing more offspring, so it's not an impediment to natural selection. Probably more accurate to say that between the complexity required to keep repairing the accumulated damage in an individual organism over time and simply replacing the organism with a new model every so often, evolution prudently chose the later. Evolution is economical... making highly complex systems that are eternally resilient and repairable is not.
I don't doubt we'll soon be able to extend lifespan (and healthspan) by quite a bit but not indefinitely unless we can transfer the mind to a new body. And frankly I doubt that makes a lot of sense because I don't think 200-year-old me will feel much identity with 20-year-old me anyway. The Buddhists probably have it right that the sense of a continuous self is largely an illusion.
Who is to say we are not reaching the levels of irreparable decay or physical damage to render death more likely? Instead of death, how about the years or months before the eventuality where we are losing our capabilities in a variety of methods? I say we are reaching this type of milestone you have spoken about in your comment. Even the tidbit about rich people hogging resources because they are doing exactly that right now!
I say this because I do believe that a lot of research into aging is just finding a lot of strange oddities in our genes, and biological mechanisms. There was never any long term biological process such as natural selection, darwinism and survivorship bias to remove or refine them into something that works better or works for indefinite lengths of time. It is only recently that more humans are able to live 60+ years and that there is billions of humans compared to the numbers of live humans in previous centuries.
I say this because I do believe that a lot of research into aging is just finding a lot of strange oddities in our genes, and biological mechanisms. There was never any long term biological process such as natural selection, darwinism and survivorship bias to remove or refine them into something that works better or works for indefinite lengths of time. It is only recently that more humans are able to live 60+ years and that there is billions of humans compared to the numbers of live humans in previous centuries.
Immortality raises a lot of ethical and philosophical questions that we will need to tackle if it ever becomes real. For example, if you live 200 years, how much would you remember of your first 30 years of life? Will that 200 year old person still technically be the same as the one that was born if he hardly remembers anything?
No it doesn't.
I'm a good bit younger than 200 and barely remember large portions of my earlier life already. What's so special about 200 that makes it any different?
I'm a good bit younger than 200 and barely remember large portions of my earlier life already. What's so special about 200 that makes it any different?
In another comment I spoke about how many more people are able to reach 60+ years of age, and that the amount of people living longer have exponentially grown. Our world population reaching another billions milestone at faster timeframes. Scarily, life expectancy was always at around 20-30 years for a large portion of history for humans.(most who reached 15 years of age were capable of living to 50 years albeit they were considered to be outliers) Around neolithic times, we had moved towards increasing population density and promoting growths. This time period was odd as it lowered the overall life expectancy because there were more humans that died from other methods as lifestyles changed from hunter-gatherer to more sedentary lifestyles. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles required loads of land for a single human to survive, which the neolithic era had been able to fix with the introduction of farming. Due to density, more people started attacking one another for variety of reasons and heavily relied on farm crops to sustain increased human populations. Societal growth of centers such as towns and cities then countries continued. Excluding many outliers, life expectancy only started to rise in the 1950s and has kept further increasing past 50+ years and 60+ years.
So yes there is something special about reaching 200 years of age. As it will singal a milestone no other human has ever reached from all of history. On the other hand, life expectancy growing at an alarming rate is putting a lot of strain on resources and land availability.
So yes there is something special about reaching 200 years of age. As it will singal a milestone no other human has ever reached from all of history. On the other hand, life expectancy growing at an alarming rate is putting a lot of strain on resources and land availability.
So by your logic we should be trying to reduce human life expectancy?!
But honestly I really don't think these arguments are motivated by/a consequence of real belief in them, it's more a kind of cope with the current situation that we've become acclimated to, something in the vein of "if god intended men to fly they'd have wings".
But honestly I really don't think these arguments are motivated by/a consequence of real belief in them, it's more a kind of cope with the current situation that we've become acclimated to, something in the vein of "if god intended men to fly they'd have wings".
It is ignorant to not plan on methods of habilitating more people. There is an unsolved problem of space constraints and transportation costs of essentials and optional resources. Reducing life expectancy and population will not solve these fundamental issues. If these two constraints are able to be solved sufficiently enough, then people will be able to live in larger swaths of land or in outer/near orbit space or within the oceans. It all depends on how we progress from here. Right now we are having the same issues that plagued the neolithic era. Our increase in population and life expectancy will end up hurting us because of the unsolved logistical issues.
If your headline includes the word "may" in this fashion, it's not a headline. Come back when you have real news.
I prefer this to the two alternatives of either not letting anyone know what you may have found or confidently exaggerating the results.
Why, that research is not interesting enough to you? That would be you - it is not universal.
There are positive findings, and new research and practical openings.
"«May»" there means: "we have positively found leads". It is not "random".
There are positive findings, and new research and practical openings.
"«May»" there means: "we have positively found leads". It is not "random".
Here’s to solving aging and room temperature superconductivity in the same year.
once they solve 'aging' they can proceed to solve 'childhood'
then we can stay adults forever, thereby ceasing to exist
then we can stay adults forever, thereby ceasing to exist
...in mice.
Due to the way medication is developed, we basically only end up with medicine that works on humans + at least one other species.
I wonder how many medications we have missed out on that would have worked on humans but never got to the human trial stage because it doesn’t work in any of the animal models we use.
I wonder how many medications we have missed out on that would have worked on humans but never got to the human trial stage because it doesn’t work in any of the animal models we use.
And a condition we can induce in another animal. If we can't cause it in another animal then we can't test a drug against it. There are a lot of diseases that can make no progress under this model which we can not induce in animals or humans.
Fascinating! Reminds me how machine learning as a field is often focused on tasks that can be quantitatively evaluated using large datasets. There are a lot of tasks that do not fit this model, especially interactive tasks.
Aspirin is famous for having teratogenic effects on rabbits and would never have been approved for humans if it were to be tested nowadays
Why? Plenty of teratogenic drugs are approved and in routine use in non-pregnant patients.
Any recent example?
Not really sure what you're getting at, teratogenicity only matters if a person is pregnant and lack of teratogenicity is in no way a requirement for FDA approval.
There are many commonly used drugs with teratogenic risks that we discontinue in pregnancy or counsel the patient on, picking randomly from a list of medications that were approved in 2023: sparsentan
I'm not sure if I'm missing something but why are you thinking teratogenicity matters when the vast majority of patients are not pregnant at a given moment?
There are many commonly used drugs with teratogenic risks that we discontinue in pregnancy or counsel the patient on, picking randomly from a list of medications that were approved in 2023: sparsentan
I'm not sure if I'm missing something but why are you thinking teratogenicity matters when the vast majority of patients are not pregnant at a given moment?
This isn’t a medication it’s a mechanism study.
I would expect not many and certainly far less than the number of medications that worked in animals but did not work or harmed humans.
I would expect not many and certainly far less than the number of medications that worked in animals but did not work or harmed humans.
Maybe if mice did Math, they could avoid this cognitive decline people talk about..
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1059235/great-contr...
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1059235/great-contr...
I misread your comment as "meth" the first time and I was like... well I guess that could theoretically help. You know, aside from the neurotoxicity of meth.
I take dextroamphetamine for ADHD, and even though it's a lot less toxic than meth is, I still have to take frequent magnesium supplements or else my magnesium levels totally dive (confirmed by blood tests).
I take dextroamphetamine for ADHD, and even though it's a lot less toxic than meth is, I still have to take frequent magnesium supplements or else my magnesium levels totally dive (confirmed by blood tests).
People just jump to say this like it's a game now. The headline says 'may have found the mechanism'. It's not claiming anything that needs this
so "scientists baffled and confused" would have been more accurate :)
edit: I'm overthinking this, but the word "scientists" does a lot of heavy lifting in the headline. The number of things the human race in general and scientists especially are unsure about is vast. Putting a person in a white overcoat, spectacles, and pen in their pockets to lead the sentence with authority doesn't give them a chance of not looking dumb. Scientists in media language are 100% of the time more clownish than even politicians or any other profession.
Even the content in itself is garbage, in which case the headline does justice, or there was in fact something news-worthy but the meta-analysis by this article has missed it.
edit: I'm overthinking this, but the word "scientists" does a lot of heavy lifting in the headline. The number of things the human race in general and scientists especially are unsure about is vast. Putting a person in a white overcoat, spectacles, and pen in their pockets to lead the sentence with authority doesn't give them a chance of not looking dumb. Scientists in media language are 100% of the time more clownish than even politicians or any other profession.
Even the content in itself is garbage, in which case the headline does justice, or there was in fact something news-worthy but the meta-analysis by this article has missed it.
Is there any mechanism for a potential medication that has not been discovered first in mice?
I saw this report the other day and didn't submit it here because of "...in mice". I mean I agree with your comment btw.
We probably need a standard bracket suffix like (in mice) for these sorts of things, as we do for year.
We probably need a standard bracket suffix like (in mice) for these sorts of things, as we do for year.
> ...in mice.
Should be by default attached to any medical news headline, just to be correct more often than not.
Should be by default attached to any medical news headline, just to be correct more often than not.
> Bayer said that aging in mice and humans both decrease a process known as S-nitrosylation, the modification of a specific brain proteins including CaMKII
While this is true, the same protein, even the same gene, often serve different purposes in different species. So even if we figure a problem out in mice down to the gene level it might not yield any results in humans. That's also the reason why the majority of drugs that have a positive outcome when trialed on mice don't yield positive results in human trials.
Anyone else finding news headlines with the word 'may' in them obnoxious?
So, how do we stop it?
If you die early enough you should be able to prevent any cognitive decline, or at least experience it all at once and very fast.
I wonder if one could even guarantee a quick and early death without suicide. I assume if you join the military or something, if you get shot on the battlefield you could end up surviving with extreme pain, or bleeding out over a long period of time, neither of which are particularly desirable. There are various ways to go to sleep and never wake up, but I'd assume anything you did intentionally would be suicide.
Some people aren't against committing suicide, but assuming you were someone who's afraid of death (so can't just commit suicide) but still doesn't want to live into their later years, what could you even do? I assume just increase the chance of accidents, but what kind of accident would result in death with minimal suffering?
Some people aren't against committing suicide, but assuming you were someone who's afraid of death (so can't just commit suicide) but still doesn't want to live into their later years, what could you even do? I assume just increase the chance of accidents, but what kind of accident would result in death with minimal suffering?
Exotic extreme sports, to answer your question.
But, most people I've come across that are outward with this attitude say they smoke tobacco to help, and have a suicide method all planned out and ready to go as a guarantee.
But, most people I've come across that are outward with this attitude say they smoke tobacco to help, and have a suicide method all planned out and ready to go as a guarantee.
> Exotic extreme sports, to answer your question.
Ah, so that's where the saying "do you have a death wish?!" came from :)
> But, most people I've come across that are outward with this attitude say they smoke tobacco to help, and have a suicide method all planned out and ready to go as a guarantee.
Having a plan and having the guts to carry it out are two different things. I've attempted suicide twice but chickened out both times. Honestly glad I didn't go through with it.
Ah, so that's where the saying "do you have a death wish?!" came from :)
> But, most people I've come across that are outward with this attitude say they smoke tobacco to help, and have a suicide method all planned out and ready to go as a guarantee.
Having a plan and having the guts to carry it out are two different things. I've attempted suicide twice but chickened out both times. Honestly glad I didn't go through with it.
Hmm, anything with fewer side effects?
Golden rule with anything health-related:
1. Fix sleep
2. Drink water
3. Have Magnesium, Zinc, Vitamin D, and natural proteines
4. Move your behind
1. Fix sleep
2. Drink water
3. Have Magnesium, Zinc, Vitamin D, and natural proteines
4. Move your behind
[deleted]
IN MICE
[deleted]
submeta(15)
same mechanism for decline in the rest of the body???? Surely oxidation and dna mutations accumulating affects the brains similarly to how it affects everything else.
I mean I'm sure that eventually entropy will claim all of us, but it'd be really cool to be able to help people maybe not extend their life times but be less miserable during them
I think I would hate losing my cognitive function if I realized it was slipping away a lot more than needing to use a wheelchair
I think I would hate losing my cognitive function if I realized it was slipping away a lot more than needing to use a wheelchair
IIRC, brain cells don’t divide, so “random DNA changes” don’t apply, at least not in the way it would in the rest of the body. I could be totally wrong, I’m not a brain scientist.
A cell still needs its DNA (to make proteins among other things) even when it is not dividing.
They asked about “compared to the rest of the body” and I was explaining (to the best of my knowledge) why it doesn’t work the same.
I know
This should be the title of the article. Honestly these supposedly dissemination articles do not offer much more than reading the abstract or skimming a bit through the article itself.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.ade5892